Evaluation of intersystem agreement between standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system

Archana G. Singh, Varsha Rani Choudhary, Vineeta Ghanghoria, Kirti Patel


Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is one of the most common gynaecological problem encountered worldwide. The POPQ has become the most commonly used prolapse staging system since its introduction (1996). In spite of having merits to it, POP-Q has not acquired a widespread acceptance. International Urogynaecological Association (IUGA) Standardization of Terminology Committee has devised a simplified version S-POP classification system based on the ordinal stages of the POPQ. The objectives of present study are to determine the intersystem agreement between the standard POPQ and S-POP classification system of pelvic organ prolapse and to propose a user-friendly classification system.

Methods: This prospective observational blinded study was conducted in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NSCB Medical College and Hospital, Jabalpur (M.P.) from March 2015-August 2016. 125 women underwent two separate pelvic examinations POPQ and S-POP, by two groups of gynaecologists at each site. Results were compared and analysed using appropriate statistics.

Results: Out of 125 women 54 (43.2%) were in age group 41-50 years. 79 (63.2%) were post-menopausal. 102 (81.4%) were more than third parity. 107 (85.6%) had home delivery. 119 (95.2%) had symptom of something coming out of vagina. The weighted Kappa statistics for the intersystem agreement of S-POP system with POPQ system for overall stage was 0.82, 0.61 for both anterior and posterior vaginal wall, 0.9 for cervix and 0.87 for posterior fornix/cuff.

Conclusions: There is significant agreement between the POPQ and S-POP classification systems of POP.


Pelvic organ prolapse, Simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system, Standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system

Full Text:



Gleason J, Richter HE, Varner RE. Pelvic organ prolapse. In: Berek JS, editor. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology, 15th ed. Philadelphia. Lippincott Williams-Wilkins; 2013.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, Delancey JO, Klarskov P et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10-7.

Beecham CT. Classification of vaginal relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;136:957-8.

Baden WF, Walker TA. Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972;15:1055-68.

Shull BL, Capen CV, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Preoperative and postoperative analysis of site-specific pelvic defects in 81 women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic construction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1764-8.

Porges RF. A practical system of diagnosis and classification of pelvic relaxations. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963;117:769-73.

Richter HE, Burgio KL, Brubaker L, Moalli PA, Markland AD, Mallet V, et al. Factors associated with incontinence frequency in a surgical cohort of stress incontinent women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2088-93.

Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE et al. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1467-70.

Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD. Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 1996;7:121-4.

Bland DR, Earle BB, Vitolins MZ, Burke G. Use of the pelvic organ prolapse staging system of the International Continence Society, and the Society of Gynaecologic Surgeons in perimenopausal women. Am J ObstetGynecol. 1999;181:1324-7.

Raizada N, Mittal P, Suri J, Puri A, Sharma V. Comparative Study to Evaluate the Intersystem Association and Reliability Between Standard Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014;64(6):421-4.

Swift S, Morris S, McKinnie V, Freeman R, Petri E, Scotti RJ et al. Validation of s simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapsed classification system. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(6):615-20.

Manonai J, Mouritsen L, Palma P, Contreras-Ortiz O, Korte JE, Swift S. The inter-system association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (S-POP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):347-52.

Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D et al. Pelvic organ support study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:795-806.

Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC. Prediction model and prognostic index to estimate clinically relevant pelvic organ prolapse in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(9):1013-21.

Gumanga S, Munkaila A, Malechi H. Social Demographic Characteristics of Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse at the Tamale Teaching Hospital, Ghana. Ghana Medic J. 2014;48(4):208-13.